The Calcutta High Court on Friday set aside a Family Court's order that had denied maintenance to a woman on the ground that she was earning a small salary. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee ruled that a husband cannot escape his legal duty by claiming unemployment when he is otherwise able-bodied.
Background
The case stems from a petition filed by Rinki Chakraborty (nee Das) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She had sought ₹10,000 per month from her husband, alleging abandonment after their marriage in 2012. Though the trial court had earlier granted her interim relief, in June 2023 it dismissed her final plea for maintenance, reasoning that she had her own income and the husband was jobless.
The woman challenged that decision before the High Court, calling it mechanical and unfair. Her lawyers stressed that she was living in hardship while her husband came from a financially better family and was intentionally avoiding responsibility.
Court's Observations
The High Court carefully examined the long history of litigation between the parties. It noted that different courts, including the Supreme Court, had previously upheld her entitlement to interim maintenance.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Rape and Domestic Violence Proceedings Against Malappuram Man
Despite this, the Family Court had denied final relief, reasoning that
"no useful purpose is ever served by directing a poor penniless person to maintain his wife."
Justice Mukherjee disagreed strongly. He remarked:
"An able-bodied young man has to be presumed capable of earning enough to maintain his wife. He cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn."
The Judge emphasised that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to protect wives from destitution and ensure they can live with dignity equal to the lifestyle they would have had in their matrimonial home.
The wife's earning of ₹12,000 per month, the bench said,
"cannot be a ground for refusing her maintenance specially when husband admitted his economic status is higher."
The court also found contradictions in the husband's defence: on one hand he alleged the wife avoided conjugal life, while on the other hand he claimed the marriage was never consummated.
Decision
Allowing the revision petition, the High Court quashed the Family Court’s June 2023 order. The husband has now been directed to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, effective from the date of her original application. Arrears must be cleared in twelve monthly instalments by October 2026.
The order concludes with a reminder that maintenance is not charity but a legal and moral duty.
"A husband cannot take the plea of joblessness as a shield against responsibility," Justice Mukherjee observed before closing the matter.
Case Title: Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 2556 of 2023
